Re: canonical/syntax-diagrams representation.

X-FeedAbuse	http://nntpfeed.proxad.net/abuse.pl feeded by 88.191.16.109
Path	csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.dougwise.org!nntpfeed.proxad.net!nospam.fr.eu.org!talisker.lacave.net!lacave.net!not-for-mail
From	William Rutiser <wruyahoo05@comcast.net>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.ruby
Subject	Re: canonical/syntax-diagrams representation.
Date	Mon, 16 May 2011 19:21:18 -0500
Organization	Service de news de lacave.net
Lines	42
Message-ID	<4DD1BF85.9030606@comcast.net> (permalink)
References	<iqqupr$i2j$1@dont-email.me>
NNTP-Posting-Host	bristol.highgroove.com
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding	7bit
X-Trace	talisker.lacave.net 1305591697 99543 65.111.164.187 (17 May 2011 00:21:37 GMT)
X-Complaints-To	abuse@lacave.net
NNTP-Posting-Date	Tue, 17 May 2011 00:21:37 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To	<iqqupr$i2j$1@dont-email.me>
X-Received-From	This message has been automatically forwarded from the ruby-talk mailing list by a gateway at comp.lang.ruby. If it is SPAM, it did not originate at comp.lang.ruby. Please report the original sender, and not us. Thanks! For more details about this gateway, please visit: http://blog.grayproductions.net/categories/the_gateway
X-Mail-Count	383357
X-Ml-Name	ruby-talk
X-Rubymirror	Yes
X-Ruby-Talk	<4DD1BF85.9030606@comcast.net>
Xref	x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.ruby:4646

Show key headers only | View raw

On 2011-05-16 6:42 AM, no.top.post@gmail.com wrote:
> I started investigating ruby.
> It's very informal, which is NOT suitable for computing.
> The chatty syntax introduction that: IF can come before
> or after, as you like, and arguments can be bracketed
> or not, as you like and block can use "}" or END; is BAD!
>
> The bloke who heads 'intentional programming' wrote a
> good article explaining why<having too many degrees
> of freedom>  makes the task more difficult, as you already
> know intuitively.
>
> Because this is my Nth programming language, I just
> want to make a<template driven editor>  for my `mc`;
> where the basic structures can be merely filled in.
>
> We don't want to be bothered with ANOTHER arbitrary
> syntax -- do we?
>
> IMO the clearest syntax representation ever, was the
> syntax-diagram format of PASCAL which was used in
> the 70s.
>
> Can anybody point me to an on-line minimal formal
> syntax for ruby, so as to not rely on the chatty tutors.
> We want a train-time-table format; not a novel.
>
> Thanks,
>
> == Chris Glur.

You may find these useful:
http://ruby.runpaint.org/
http://www.ipa.go.jp/software/open/ossc/english/ruby/Ruby_final_draft_enu_20100825.pdf

While not online,
[ "The Ruby Programming Language", David Flanagan & Yukihiro Matsumoto, 
O'reilly ]
is pretty thorough and concise.

Bill Rutiser

Thread

canonical/syntax-diagrams representation. no.top.post@gmail.com - 2011-05-16 10:37 +0000
  Re: canonical/syntax-diagrams representation. Adam Prescott <adam@aprescott.com> - 2011-05-16 06:15 -0500
  Re: canonical/syntax-diagrams representation. Peter Hickman <peterhickman386@googlemail.com> - 2011-05-16 06:24 -0500
  Re: canonical/syntax-diagrams representation. Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-05-16 06:52 -0500
  Re: canonical/syntax-diagrams representation. Clifford Heath <no@spam.please.net> - 2011-05-17 09:17 +1000
    Re: canonical/syntax-diagrams representation. Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@zenspider.com> - 2011-05-16 19:50 -0500
      Re: canonical/syntax-diagrams representation. Stu <stu@rubyprogrammer.net> - 2011-05-17 02:41 -0500
      Re: canonical/syntax-diagrams representation. Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-05-18 20:35 +0200
    Re: canonical/syntax-diagrams representation. Robert Dober <robert.dober@gmail.com> - 2011-05-20 05:07 -0500
  Re: canonical/syntax-diagrams representation. Stu <stu@rubyprogrammer.net> - 2011-05-16 18:30 -0500
  Re: canonical/syntax-diagrams representation. William Rutiser <wruyahoo05@comcast.net> - 2011-05-16 19:21 -0500
  Re: canonical/syntax-diagrams representation. Justin Collins <justincollins@ucla.edu> - 2011-05-17 04:24 -0500
  Re: canonical/syntax-diagrams representation. "Markus H." <shevegen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-19 12:57 -0500
    Re: canonical/syntax-diagrams representation. Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> - 2011-05-19 13:42 -0500
  Re: canonical/syntax-diagrams representation. Brian Candler <b.candler@pobox.com> - 2011-05-20 03:25 -0500
    Re: canonical/syntax-diagrams representation. Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@gmail.com> - 2011-05-20 07:34 -0500
      Re: canonical/syntax-diagrams representation. spiralofhope <spiralofhope_rubyml@lavabit.com> - 2011-05-20 13:24 -0500
  Re: canonical/syntax-diagrams representation. Intransition <transfire@gmail.com> - 2011-05-20 08:12 -0500
  Re: canonical/syntax-diagrams representation. Intransition <transfire@gmail.com> - 2011-05-20 08:12 -0500

csiph-web